Regulation- helpful or not?

One of the major topics being debated between Obama and Romney is regulation.When it comes to regulation, the right and left could not differ any more with their political views. While one side (Republicans) believes that regulation will hurt businesses, the other side (Democrats) believe that deregulation will help business and create jobs.

When it comes down to which side is right, the Democrats seem to support a better case for regulation. Regulation saves businesses, as well as consumers' health, rights, worker's rights and the environment. An example of this is the regulation that protected American consumer from a financial collapse. According to US Government Corruption , 2012, "The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act] formally repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (also known as the Banking Act of 1933) and related laws, which prohibited commercial banks from offering investment banking and insurance services." The deregulation of banks is what many economists think caused the collapse, including Paul Krugman. Hopefully, American society will realize when it comes to regulation, the Democrats are right.


(Opposing Viewpoints- Financial Corruption By A Corrupt Congress And Executive Branch Lead To Deruglation and a Financial Meltdown)
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010764212
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=active&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=Vejiam-s24ACrM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ldjackson.net/dodd-frank-financial-regulation/&docid=m-WSN19psw7ktM&imgurl=http://www.ldjackson.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/bank-regulation.jpg&w=470&h=282&ei=44qKUIqaNdTyyAH83oHIAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=905&vpy=163&dur=2861&hovh=174&hovw=290&tx=173&ty=129&sig=107541973519984642371&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=235&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:83

The Tiny Country That Thought It Could (And Did)

   Japan: How it became and stayed rich

   Japan's trade only really flourished when it used capitalistic ideals, advanced technology, modernized, and stayed open for the world to trade. And I can prove it. 

   In order to understand why the tiny country of Japan has a better economy than say Africa, which is a much larger country with a lot of natural resources, the reader must delve into Japan's history. As with most countries, the economy of Japan has had it's ups and downs.

 The First Down: 

-Japan had a relatively flourishing trade with mostly other Asian countries until the 1630's

-shogunate(ruler) issued a series of decrees that banned trade, foreign travel, and the building of ships
-seclusion lasted til the late 1850's
-did foster closer trade with the Asian countries
-trade declined between even these countries as supply and demand lessened
-weak technology skills attributed to this decline as well  because Japan did not benefit from inventions made due to seclusion
-Notice how in this down Japan did not have technological skills, was not trying to modernize, and had a seclusion policy that kept it from trading with the rest of the world
The First Up:
-Commodore Matthew Perry (of the U.S.) demanded the opening of Japanese ports
-Japan had little power so was forced to do that
-was able to keep opium out of the country unlike China (notice how dependent China became)
-new western technology introduced
-Capitalistic ventures flourished with this technology
-this industrialization was needed in order push Japan towards becoming a world power in trade
The Second (Small) Down
-during World War 2downturn
-Japan cut off from normal trading partners 
The Second Up (Continues Still Today)
- opened up again when U.S. finally decided to start reform japan
-democracy, education, and capitalism implemented with the U.S. reforms
So Japan is saved from poverty through capitalism and democracy. Who should be saved next?
Source: World History in Context, Japan (a history of world trade)
Taken from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9491427/Japan-trade-deficit-widens-as-EU-exports-plunge.html and http://www.tofugu.com/2012/03/30/the-richest-man-in-japan/

Second Presidential Debate: Who will hurt the environment more?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/presidential-debate-energy_n_1972335.html
Energy Facts, And A Few Fibs, On Display At Presidential Debate

In the Huffington Post about the second presidential debate between Romney and Obama, Tom Zeller Jr. discusses the energy policies both candidates may impose during their term. Romney is pro-oil, while Obama is pro-efficiency and clean energy.

During the debate, Obama said that his policies on the standards of fuel economy will allow cars to have twice the fuel efficiency that they have now by 2025. However, Romney said that he would roll back existing standards that would have allowed cars to reach over 35 miles per gallon by 2016. So far, Romney is not doing a good job at keeping our environment well.

In regards to oil production, 241 million more barrels of oil were produced under Obama's term, which is good, since the oil would have been produced sometime in the future anyways, and with this increased production we will be able to use less foreign oil and use more of our own, allowing us to become more energy independent.

source:  airideal.wordpress.com

source: zmescience.com

Romney's plan is to increase states rights with regards to their land, which would almost certainly increase the chance of exploitation of land by fossil fuel prospectors. He would also like to remove the "wind production tax credit" which is arguably the sole reason the wind production businesses is kept alive. While doing this, he also plans to "continue his tax support breaks for fossil fuel producers".

While neither candidate talked about the important topic of climate change, it is quite reasonable to say from the aforementioned topics that Obama will harm the environment less with more renewable energy and more "clean coal", while on the other hand Romney wants to give fossil fuel producers tax breaks and he plans to continue producing as much energy from coal and fossil fuels.

Will the country benefit more as a whole from Romney's plan of increasing oil production and increasing tax breaks for fossil fuel producers, or from Obama's plan in somewhat increasing oil production as well as implementing more clean energy? It may be important to note that both candidates are in favor of becoming energy independent.





According to BusinessInsider, Tom Zeller Jr. "an American reporter and writer at The Huffington Post covering a variety of topics, including poverty, energy policy and the environment. He joined HuffPost in May, 2011. 
He also attended Columbia University as well as Cleveland State University, making him a reputable source and he provides great insight about the topic.

Oil in America is better!!!!

www.EncyclopediaBritanica.com

Image from Encyclopedia Britanica

With the rising gas prices, many people are beginning to wonder why gas is so expensive.  In order to find out the reason for this, we have to go back a little in time. When OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) was established, it was a way for foreign countries put a set price on what the cost of oil should be.  This creates many problems because we are a large consumer of oil and we are willing to pay a lot of money in order to get that oil.  A solution to this problem is tapping into our large oil reserves. 
           The United States sits atop one of the largest untapped oil reserves in the world.  With and estimated volume of 2.3 trillion barrels of oil many people believe that it is the solution to our ongoing oil crisis.  Many experts say that if we are to tap into our oil reserves, it can be a solution to help us get out of our economic crisis.  It makes sense that we would want to drill on our own soil because then we are making ourselves rich rather than middle eastern countries that are taxing the heck out of our oil.  But what the current administration would rather do is go overseas to countries like brazil, which have recently found plenty of oil along its coasts, and ask them to be our top buyer of their oil.
           Drilling for oil has become a very profitable income for many families.  The average income of a drill worker in $51,000 a year.  If we are to open up drilling facilities, it would be very beneficial to our economy.  If we don't act soon, we are likely to see a price up to $5 for a gallon of gas.  By drilling on our vast oil reserves, we will be able to keep prices low for our middle to lower class family who need every dollar that they take in.Whats is your opinion on drilling in America?
           

Solar Energy Creates Jobs

Global Issues in Context 
 Behind the Solyndra headlines: US solar energy is booming


http://solarenergyfactsblog.com/best-solar-panels/

In this article it is stated that solar energy creates 100,000 jobs for Americans , which is more than double from two years ago.  That is, because the solar market is becoming more competitive, making it more affordable for Americans. The price for solar panels have dropped by 30 percent since the beginning of 2010, so its cheaper to install solar as project developers. But, unlike other energy sources there is currently a federal tax that was put in 2006 and will expire in 2016. Companies are also trying to get a free enterprise economy, and that would make it even more competitive. Do you think that having a free enterprise economy will benefit us and the environment? 

Know the candidates tax proposals before you vote

Today we have one of the most contentious and polorizing political campaign in hisotry unfolding before our eyes. President Obama and Mitt Romney had very different approches as to how we can grow our economy and bring it back from the worst recession since the great depression.

The recovery from the worst recession since the great depresssion has also been one of the most staganant. While the unemployment rate has dropped from the very high levels in 2010, they have only done so because so many millions of americans have dropped out of the workforce entirely. To fix this the government needs to reform our tax system to manage the federal deficit and to encourage job creation.

Accoring to the White House, President Oama supports raising income taxes paid on wealthier individuals and closing corportate loopholes for oil companies and companies that send jobs overseas. He says that by raising income taxes on high income earners and some small businesses the deficit will be decreased by $1.5 Trillion by the end of the decade. According to forbes, the President's plan also means that the capital gains tax will increase from 15% to as much as 23% However, the Affordable care act imposes tax increases of up to $2,300 for uninsured families.

Mitt Romney calls for maintaing the current Bush tax cuts and an across the board tax decrease of 20% for all working individuals. To encourage investment and market participation he opposes any increase in capital gains and dividend tax for wealthy individuals and wants to eliminate capital gains taxes for middle income americans. Because the United States has one of the highest corportate income tax in the world and has forced the US to be less competitive he wants to lower corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%. Also, he proposes that income tax deducitons for wealthy individuals and corporations be cut in order to stay revanue neutral.



Sources: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/feeonlyplanner/2012/09/17/will-you-pay-the-new-obamacare-tax/
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Romney and Obama: Who's hurting the environment?

Mother Nature Network - Obama-Romney debate skirts environment
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/blogs/obama-romney-debate-skirts-environment#

In the article, McLendon discusses the both the viewpoints of Romney and Obama, albeit those view points were few during the presidential debate. Obama believes that wind and solar energy are the energy sources of the future. While on the other hand, Romney believes that the federal government should not have much say in private companies who use green energy.

Romney says that about half of federal funded private green companies have gone out of business, which is called "the lie of the night" with only three of 33 business funded by the government have gone out of business. This was confirmed by fact checkers later.

It is clear that Romney has little interest in going "green" while on the other hand Obama leans towards green energy, which indicates that the environment will be worse off if Romney were to take office, and not as bad if Obama took office.

Who will benefit the country more in the long run? Romney advocating oil and making money now, or Obama advocating green energy and fuel efficiency keeping the environment well.

source: ecoconsciouspioneers.com

Source
Mother Nature Network - Obama-Romney debate skirts environment
Author: Russell McLendon
McLendon is a featured blogger on MNN who has received many of the sites "points" which indicate how reputable his information and how accurate his blogging is. Moreover, MNN describes him as "Eco-journalist blogs about science, politics and other early matters".

The Article refers to the Presidential debate on Wednesday, and the blog was created the day after on Thursday. McLendon cites many sources within his articles which include hyperlinks to those things which he refers to. Also, since it is about the presidential debate, there is not a formal citation about that which is the main subject.